Editorial: Diplomacy is a job for the professionals

Opinion

One point was missing from all the froth and indignation that poured from opposition parties yesterday over Graham Kelly's racially offensive comments to a Canadian senate committee. Nowhere was the logical conclusion drawn. Nowhere was it suggested that politicians should not be occupying overseas diplomatic posts. Instead, self-interest reigned as the latest in a long line of gaffes was used for political points-scoring.

That the practice of political appointments persists is astounding in itself. Other customs of so little merit, and with the potential to create such large measures of embarrassment, have disappeared long ago. The US practice of appointing presidential favourites as ambassadors to countries like New Zealand, more often than not to reward generous campaign donations, is widely scorned. Yet we do much the same ourselves, and with similar doleful consequences.

The list of misdemeanours perpetrated by political appointees is long. In the plum post of High Commissioner to Britain alone, it ranges from revelations about John Collinge's personal affairs to, most recently, Jonathan Hunt's musing over his eligibility for a British pension and his absence from an Anzac Day ceremony because it was raining.

These recurring misjudgments are not a matter of chance. Politicians do not have the training in tact and conduct required of a diplomat in a senior overseas post. Nor, in many cases, do they have the disposition. The cut and thrust and general rumbustiousness of Parliament's debating chamber is hardly the ideal preparation for the sensitivity, prudence and moderation of high-level diplomacy.

The practice endures, of course, because of its convenience for whatever party is in power. It can, in the American tradition, be a reward. Or it can be a way of moving on an MP who has become a liability. In too many cases, too little attention is paid to the question of suitability. Whether, for example, it was appropriate to appoint as High Commissioner to Canada a man aged 64 who underwent a heart bypass after suffering three heart attacks in the year that he left Parliament. The Foreign Affairs Minister has defended Mr Kelly's overall performance in Ottawa, and lauded his "energy and enthusiasm". Given this lapse, and Mr Kelly's recent background, that smacks of an extremely generous assessment.

There can be no doubt that a professional diplomat would serve New Zealand's interests better in Canada - and that that situation should apply in all of this country's overseas posts. Then, there would be no speaking off the cuff, and no failure to clear intended comments to a public forum with the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Indeed, it appears that only through the discernment of the deputy commissioner, a professional diplomat, was Wellington alerted to Mr Kelly's utterances.

Such political appointments are the more lamentable because MPs are hardly in need of such a sinecure. Down through the years, political parties have co-operated in Parliament to progressively enrich the superannuation and perks of those who leave the House, whether voluntarily or at the whim of the electorate. For the taxpayer, it is heaping insult on insult to see MPs winging their way to plush overseas embassies. For diplomats in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the taste must be particularly sour.

Parliament has shown some willingness over the past decade to rid itself of practices that have passed their use-by date. A more stringent fiscal reporting regime has, for example, created greater transparency and helped remove the unwelcome surprise element from the budget. Mr Kelly's misjudgment should be the cue for it now to agree that politicians make poor diplomats. To recognise that this was one stuff-up too many. And to place New Zealand first by putting an end to this most self-serving of practices.